Re: [mh] What to do with unsupported / broken common code

On 06/26/2013 10:20 AM, Michael Stovenour wrote:
>
> Should we archive unsupported code, delete it outright, or just leave it?
I vote for zip it and archive, maybe with a manifest. Probably the most
important thing is to get broken modules out of the "common code"
repository so that newcomers don't get the impression that MH is broken.
So much of that code scraped html or relied on APIs that are gone. Maybe
some useful bits generally, so useful to mothball? Then again, who might
bother?
>
> If archive is the best option, where should we archive it?
/old_dusty_[mostly]unloved_bits
Rick

Thread view

I've used the weather_aws.pl common code for a decade. In the past year the web service
has been taken down and is no longer supported. I think users should use
weather_weatherbug.pl as an alternative. I'm not done testing it so I can't guarantee it
is suitable.
So now I'm left wondering what we should do with old code like this. This one is probably
an easy "just delete the module" decision given that the underlying service is no longer
available. But I'm left wondering if we should have a policy and documentation around
archiving old, unsupported, common code. What do you all think?
Should we archive unsupported code, delete it outright, or just leave it?
If archive is the best option, where should we archive it?
Sincerely,
Michael

On 06/26/2013 10:20 AM, Michael Stovenour wrote:
>
> Should we archive unsupported code, delete it outright, or just leave it?
I vote for zip it and archive, maybe with a manifest. Probably the most
important thing is to get broken modules out of the "common code"
repository so that newcomers don't get the impression that MH is broken.
So much of that code scraped html or relied on APIs that are gone. Maybe
some useful bits generally, so useful to mothball? Then again, who might
bother?
>
> If archive is the best option, where should we archive it?
/old_dusty_[mostly]unloved_bits
Rick

Hi Michael,
if the file is really no longer of use I would delete it from the master tree. Files that are removed are archived automatically in the history of the repository so we can retrieve them easily if we would ever need them again in the future.
Kind regards,
Lieven.
Op 26-jun.-2013, om 16:20 heeft "Michael Stovenour" <michael@...> het volgende geschreven:
> I’ve used the weather_aws.pl common code for a decade. In the past year the web service has been taken down and is no longer supported. I think users should use weather_weatherbug.pl as an alternative. I’m not done testing it so I can’t guarantee it is suitable.
>
> So now I’m left wondering what we should do with old code like this. This one is probably an easy “just delete the module” decision given that the underlying service is no longer available. But I’m left wondering if we should have a policy and documentation around archiving old, unsupported, common code. What do you all think?
>
> Should we archive unsupported code, delete it outright, or just leave it?
> If archive is the best option, where should we archive it?
>
> Sincerely,
> Michael
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
>
> Build for Windows Store.
>
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev________________________________________________________
> To unsubscribe from this list, go to: http://sourceforge.net/mail/?group_id=1365
>

On 06/26/2013 10:20 AM, Michael Stovenour wrote:
> I’ve used the weather_aws.pl common code for a decade. In the past year
> the web service has been taken down and is no longer supported. I think
> users should use weather_weatherbug.pl as an alternative. I’m not done
> testing it so I can’t guarantee it is suitable.
>
> So now I’m left wondering what we should do with old code like this.
> This one is probably an easy “just delete the module” decision given
> that the underlying service is no longer available. But I’m left
> wondering if we should have a policy and documentation around archiving
> old, unsupported, common code. What do you all think?
>
> Should we archive unsupported code, delete it outright, or just leave it?
>
> If archive is the best option, where should we archive it?
Is the "archive" provided by the RCS (git) not good enough?
On an unrelated note, I use internet_weather.pl and it seems to work
well enough for me. I believe it uses data from NOAA.
Cheers,
Eloy Paris.-

OK, I agree. Just checking to make sure there was rough consensus.
On June 26, 2013 11:38 AM Lieven wrote:
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> if the file is really no longer of use I would delete it from the master tree. Files
> that are removed are archived automatically in the history of the repository so we can
> retrieve them easily if we would ever need them again in the future.
>
> Kind regards,
> Lieven.
>
> Op 26-jun.-2013, om 16:20 heeft "Michael Stovenour" <michael@...> het volgende
> geschreven:
>
> > I've used the weather_aws.pl common code for a decade. In the past year the web
> service has been taken down and is no longer supported. I think users should use
> weather_weatherbug.pl as an alternative. I'm not done testing it so I can't guarantee
> it is suitable.
> >
> > So now I'm left wondering what we should do with old code like this. This one is
> probably an easy "just delete the module" decision given that the underlying service is
> no longer available. But I'm left wondering if we should have a policy and
> documentation around archiving old, unsupported, common code. What do you all think?
> >
> > Should we archive unsupported code, delete it outright, or just leave it?
> > If archive is the best option, where should we archive it?
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Michael

Well, as an opposing viewpoint, I think there's some value in making
it part of the code base, if only more examples of how things can
work (even if they don't). The more examples of how MH works the
better. and some of them might get fixed by someone tinkering with
them, and be able to resurrect the function.
Once you delete them, no one will ever go digging through the
repository history.
Rick
At 09:14 PM 6/26/2013, Michael Stovenour wrote:
>OK, I agree. Just checking to make sure there was rough consensus.
>
>On June 26, 2013 11:38 AM Lieven wrote:
> >
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > if the file is really no longer of use I would delete it from the
> master tree. Files
> > that are removed are archived automatically in the history of the
> repository so we can
> > retrieve them easily if we would ever need them again in the future.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Lieven.
> >
> > Op 26-jun.-2013, om 16:20 heeft "Michael Stovenour"
> <michael@...> het volgende
> > geschreven:
> >
> > > I've used the weather_aws.pl common code for a decade. In the
> past year the web
> > service has been taken down and is no longer supported. I think
> users should use
> > weather_weatherbug.pl as an alternative. I'm not done testing it
> so I can't guarantee
> > it is suitable.
> > >
> > > So now I'm left wondering what we should do with old code like
> this. This one is
> > probably an easy "just delete the module" decision given that the
> underlying service is
> > no longer available. But I'm left wondering if we should have a policy and
> > documentation around archiving old, unsupported, common
> code. What do you all think?
> > >
> > > Should we archive unsupported code, delete it outright, or just leave it?
> > > If archive is the best option, where should we archive it?
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Michael
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
>
>Build for Windows Store.
>
>http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
>________________________________________________________
>To unsubscribe from this list, go to:
>http://sourceforge.net/mail/?group_id=1365

How about moving them into an unsupported_bin directory (or call
it something else (nonfunctional_bin?)) and put it in the examples
directory. They'd still be available for folks to look at, but
they wouldn't be part of the executable code.
Joel
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, it would appear that Rick Steeves wrote:
> Well, as an opposing viewpoint, I think there's some value in making
> it part of the code base, if only more examples of how things can
> work (even if they don't). The more examples of how MH works the
> better. and some of them might get fixed by someone tinkering with
> them, and be able to resurrect the function.
>
> Once you delete them, no one will ever go digging through the
> repository history.
>
> Rick
>
>
> At 09:14 PM 6/26/2013, Michael Stovenour wrote:
>> OK, I agree. Just checking to make sure there was rough consensus.
>>
>> On June 26, 2013 11:38 AM Lieven wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Michael,
>>>
>>> if the file is really no longer of use I would delete it from the
>> master tree. Files
>>> that are removed are archived automatically in the history of the
>> repository so we can
>>> retrieve them easily if we would ever need them again in the future.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Lieven.
>>>
>>> Op 26-jun.-2013, om 16:20 heeft "Michael Stovenour"
>> <michael@...> het volgende
>>> geschreven:
>>>
>>>> I've used the weather_aws.pl common code for a decade. In the
>> past year the web
>>> service has been taken down and is no longer supported. I think
>> users should use
>>> weather_weatherbug.pl as an alternative. I'm not done testing it
>> so I can't guarantee
>>> it is suitable.
>>>>
>>>> So now I'm left wondering what we should do with old code like
>> this. This one is
>>> probably an easy "just delete the module" decision given that the
>> underlying service is
>>> no longer available. But I'm left wondering if we should have a policy and
>>> documentation around archiving old, unsupported, common
>> code. What do you all think?
>>>>
>>>> Should we archive unsupported code, delete it outright, or just leave it?
>>>> If archive is the best option, where should we archive it?
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>> Michael
>>
>>